Science Of Species Law Called Into Question

Best Research Often Full Of Uncertainty

July 21, 1995|By Hugh Dellios, Tribune Staff Writer.

SEATTLE — It doesn't take a scientist to know that the Northwest's mighty salmon no longer crowd their way up the Columbia River and spill from fishermen's nets in prodigious numbers. Proving they are an endangered species, it turns out, is another matter.

For almost two years, environmentalists had demanded that the federal government extend the protection of the Endangered Species Act to the West Coast coho salmon, the "silvers" that have long been the prize of charter fishing fleets but whose numbers have declined drastically since the beginning of the century.

The task of determining whether the coho risks extinction fell to federal biologists at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. Following the law's mandate to use "the best available science," they set out to gather all the data they could.

They pored over reams of studies of coho genetics and behavior. They dug through file cabinets at fish hatcheries run by the region's Indian tribes. They even studied geological maps of the Ice Age to try to determine the coho's river migration patterns since the last glaciers disappeared.

On Wednesday the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed listing coho from California, the Oregon coast and the Columbia River Basin as "threatened" under the act. The listing can't take effect for a year.

But when they finished, the experts still were unsure about some basic issues-for instance, how many wild fish were left compared to hatchery fish. And there was uncertainty over what was causing the decline of the fish population, since the experts couldn't blame the usual culprit-fish-killing hydropower dams-because the coho never swam far enough up the Columbia River to encounter them.

"Sometimes the best `available' science may not be very good," said Robin Waples, the biologist heading the team. "If you were talking about a prosecution, you might not always have enough information to go to a grand jury."

The biologists' tale of uncertainty illustrates the difficulty officials often face when trying to figure out how to save an imperiled species. While federal officials profess confidence about their coho conclusions, they realize they will always be open to second-guessing.

And because of that, the science behind the Endangered Species Act has become a crucial issue as the 22-year-old law faces its toughest survival test ever-in Congress.

Critics contend the stringent law is based on faulty science deliberately being wielded by environmentalists to undermine economic progress and private property rights. They argue that the process of listing new species, which automatically triggers drastic regulations that restrict land use, is slanted to favor species that may not deserve protection.

Proponents of the Endangered Species Act say such attacks are simply efforts to derail the law's enforcement for reasons of greed and profit. They point to a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences that rejected criticisms of the listing process and declared it was based on "sound" science.

Such battles over the scientific high ground are common in the nation's tortuous efforts to set environmental policy. Arguments constantly rage over the definition of a wetland, for example, or whether salvage logging or controlled burning is the proper way to reduce the danger of wildfires in the West.

But the mysteries of saving imperiled plants and animals have made the Endangered Species Act especially vulnerable to attacks on its scientific integrity. Compared to such activities as measuring air and water quality, calculating the risk of extinction or the chance of recovery of a particular species is far more difficult.

"The bottom line is there is no point at which you can decide to switch species survival on or off," said Dennis Murphy, director of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University. "Even in the face of good science, the decisions are constantly arbitrary. They are all likelihoods, not facts."

Murphy and other scientists argue that the problem with the species law is not a lack of good science but the way it is applied. Officials try to address the plight of a species too late in the game, they contend, and the agencies charged with the task often lack the necessary time, resources and experience.

Federal officials deny any pro-species bias in enforcing the law. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it rejected 68 percent of requests for listing species between 1990 and 1994, and officials say there is more than enough room to consider human needs in the public process of drafting species recovery plans.

Still, the law's critics in Congress are demanding independent review of all decisions to place plants and animals on the endangered list. They also are seeking to dismantle the National Biological Service, a small research arm of the Fish and Wildlife Service.